On Quoting bin Laden

Mark Silva and Andrew Zajac write in the Chicago Tribune: "As part of a series of speeches that coincide with the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the president again linked the war on terror with the war in Iraq -- despite escalating deaths of Iraqis in sectarian violence and fresh evidence of a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan."

Craig Gordon writes in Newsday: "Hoping once more to tap the political potency of 9/11, President George W. Bush repeatedly quoted Osama bin Laden yesterday to warn that the threat of terrorism lives on - and to try to rally voters behind the Republican vision for fighting it. . . .

"It's all part of a three-week campaign-style push - timed to Monday's anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks - in which Bush is seeking to tap into past voter support for his anti-terror polices, support that has largely eroded over public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. . . .

"For Bush, raising bin Laden so forcefully comes with some risks - not the least of which is to remind voters that even though Bush famously declared he wanted bin Laden 'dead or alive,' the U.S. military has failed to capture or kill him.

"But David Heyman, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said Bush weathered that problem in the 2004 campaign and may now believe it's worth the risk again 'to put a real face on terrorism . . . . I would guess there's been some [internal Republican] polling that people get riled up when they hear bin Laden's name.'"

Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write for Newsweek.com: "There was a time when the White House considered Osama bin Laden so contemptible and so radioactive that it would rarely mention his name in any presidential speech. President Bush's aides didn't want to dignify the Al Qaeda leader by suggesting he was worthy of a presidential response. Moreover, they thought there was some danger in propagating the views of a figure who wanted to reach the widest audience -- and possibly even send coded messages to his followers. . . .

"That was the old rhetoric of the war on terror. In the latest version of the war of words, the White House has elevated bin Laden to a mixture of foreign leader, historical icon and political adversary. Bin Laden's words (and those of his henchmen) provided the backbone for Bush's speech to military officers on Tuesday. Far from brushing aside bin Laden's rants, Bush insisted they were a modern-day Mein Kampf, a guide to Al Qaeda's global strategy. The White House now finds itself in the extraordinary position of selling the war on terror by citing the very man it ranks as public enemy No. 1.

"Why the turnaround? Bush's aides acknowledge that voters have become confused about who the enemy is and what they represent -- in part because Iraq has muddied the concept of the war."

Julie Hirschfeld Davis writes in the Baltimore Sun that other than the rhetoric, there wasn't much new in Bush's speech: "Even Bush's top advisers acknowledged that the president is not offering fresh plans about how to turn things around in Iraq or keep Americans safe."

Here's Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday afternoon, talking to White House correspondent Ed Henry:

"BLITZER: When you speak to White House officials, Ed, how embarrassed are they -- if they are embarrassed -- that five years after 9/11, the man responsible for those 3,000 deaths, Osama bin Laden, is still a free man?

"HENRY: As you can imagine, it's a sore subject for White House officials. They insist they still have al Qaeda on the run. And you heard from the president himself today almost goading bin Laden by saying that he has to remain in hiding and that he won't come out and show his face. But you can bet, it's an embarrassment for them five years later, Wolf."